Evolution vs. Creation

[Pendragon]

Cuppa, I salute your attempt at answering the question. At least you took the time to give it a bit of thought, and lined out a sequence of events. Why others resort to flippancy so easily is something I simply cannot understand. I would rather hear an honest "I neither know nor care." than any sort of flippant dismissal of a question, which makes me wonder if the person has ever considered the validity of their own statements, and wondered if they could be wrong.

I have little problem with fossil records if enough fossil exists to give a clear picture of the creature that left the remains. My problems come with fragmentary evidence, built into a single skull; the skin depth markers guessed at, and the face constructed by forensics. I have seen them turn out looking fairly normal human until the hair and stuff was added. It could be a miss-identification. The full fossils I do not question, the creatures are subjective, but probable.

God to exist would be a being that would be beyond explanation, beyond any real ability to prove. We are talking a being who could create simply by speaking. How would you test that? And if man actually saw it happen, an entire group of people, would not the rest of the world simply shake their collective heads and call them insane? You are trying to prove something that cannot be proven. Do I personally believe in God? Yes. I have my own reasons, which would mean nothing to you. The only way for someone to believe in God is not through experimentation but experience. You either can accept it or you simply cannot. Or like many, you can pretend to accept it, while secretly thinking "Well, it looks good on the old résumé.”

I have been totally honest. I can’t prove God. Convincing you of God’s existence would take more than my word that He exists. Quoting any religious text to you will just be words on paper, they hold no meaning for you, because you already have decided God is not out there. So I will believe what I believe, and as Cuppa said, leave me alone, I’m happy. And if you are happy without me preaching to you, I’ll leave you alone. You ever feel the need to talk, you know how to PM me.

God bless.

Pen

[cuppajoe_9]

Cuppa, I salute your attempt at answering the question. At least you took the time to give it a bit of thought, and lined out a sequence of events. Why others resort to flippancy so easily is something I simply cannot understand. I would rather hear an honest "I neither know nor care." than any sort of flippant dismissal of a question, which makes me wonder if the person has ever considered the validity of their own statements, and wondered if they could be wrong.

I thank you kindly, sir, and thank you again for the question.

I have little problem with fossil records if enough fossil exists to give a clear picture of the creature that left the remains. My problems come with fragmentary evidence, built into a single skull; the skin depth markers guessed at, and the face constructed by forensics. I have seen them turn out looking fairly normal human until the hair and stuff was added. It could be a miss-identification. The full fossils I do not question, the creatures are subjective, but probable.

The way around this is that every time any guesswork is involved, a plethora of paleantologists spring up to 'guess' something else. Except in reasonably clear-cut cases, one can find a respectable source to testify that just about any Homo genus fossil belongs to a creature that walked upright, or on all fours, or swung from trees; used tools or didn't; had expressive language or didn't; hunted in groups, or alone, or raised crops, or pracitsed husbandry, or fished, or survived entirely on wild berries and grubs. In fact, if you can get two randomly selected paleantologists to agree on anything, it's a pretty good indication that it's fairly clear. Paleantologists will fight about anything (or so I've heard).

God to exist would be a being that would be beyond explanation, beyond any real ability to prove. We are talking a being who could create simply by speaking. How would you test that?

Ah, I should have specified: I outline a sequence that would leave me fairly convinced in a deity who spontaneously created all the animal species on the earth more or less as they are today. A deity who creates universes through such methods as Big Bangs and evolution (mysterious ways indeed) is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I have been totally honest. I can’t prove God. Convincing you of God’s existence would take more than my word that He exists. Quoting any religious text to you will just be words on paper, they hold no meaning for you, because you already have decided God is not out there. So I will believe what I believe, and as Cuppa said, leave me alone, I’m happy. And if you are happy without me preaching to you, I’ll leave you alone. You ever feel the need to talk, you know how to PM me.

I appreciate it. The community in which I live is home to several religious sects which I shall not identify except to say that they are fond of agressive door-to-door proselytizing (I'm thinking of compiling a selection of pamphlets by Bertrand Russell, Percy Shelley and Richard Dawkins to exchange on such occasions). To me, going door-to-door trying to push what I believe about God to people who did not ask my opinion is completely unthinkable. If I would like somebody to tell me their ideas about God I will ask, and I expect the same of everybody else.

[Lote-Tree]

Evolution - Theory in a nutshell -Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:

1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.

5. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.

6. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.

7. Much of this variation is inheritable.

8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.

9.The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.

10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.

Which bit is False?

[Guzmán]

An interesting thing about probability is that in a given experiment, the fact that an event that has, by definition, cero probability of happening doesn't necessarily mean that it wil never happen.

Take the following experiment: suppose i ask you to choose a real number between cero and one (im treating you as a sort of random number generator here). Suppose you choose pi/4. Now given the nature of the experiment the probability of you choosing that number (or any other one nuber for that matter) is by definition, cero. However you did choose that number which means that an event with cero probability did in fact happen.

Also to take into account is the difference between continuous and discrete probability distributions. When playing around with the letters of the alphabet youre abviously in the discrete casel. However, if you are talking about design of a living being shouldn´t you take into account a continuous model? Anyway, here´s as far as my knowledge of applied probability theory takes me, however in regards to that question i would guess a continuous model fits best although its all conjecture.
I gather from the examples you provided, the pledge of allegiance and such, that you computed favourable cases over all cases possible which assumes some sort of uniform distribution of the characters... Anyway i dont think that example holds much water either since (this is all conjecture) i suppose biological developments are far from random in a uniform sort of way (as far as i know, the sum of various uniform distributed factors contribute in a gaussian distribution) nor would they be independent (as i gather you considered all the letters to be). Besides if you add time into the equation you end up with a random process and boy... (Im well over my head here)
Ergodicity comes to mind if you want to estimate time development with instantaneous stadistics but anyway this isnt a math forum... my point is that, I consider the random word analogy a pretty poor one to compare to species develoment (hell even to the english language or any other language), not to mention the fact that you didnt justify why did you consider certain things complex or specific, but i think this point was addressed by cuppajoe in the Xerzicon alien being example.

Anyway, even though as i already stated my knowledge of probability is very vague (an undergraduate course of theoretical probability and some applications in communications courses) it would be interesting to discuss your analogy and to make conjectures about if it fits or not biological development in a stricter way and not in the form of a rant I just churned out but i dont think this is the place and i, for myself, am way over my head, i just wanted to add my two cents on the issue since i dont think all that talkabout probability serves as any sort of argument for ID.

Again sorry for the rant

[Pendragon]

I thank you kindly, sir, and thank you again for the question.

I appreciate it. The community in which I live is home to several religious sects which I shall not identify except to say that they are fond of agressive door-to-door proselytizing (I'm thinking of compiling a selection of pamphlets by Bertrand Russell, Percy Shelley and Richard Dawkins to exchange on such occasions). To me, going door-to-door trying to push what I believe about God to people who did not ask my opinion is completely unthinkable. If I would like somebody to tell me their ideas about God I will ask, and I expect the same of everybody else.

No need for the "Sir", mon ami, we are friends. I too, abhor the constant door to door visits, but I have my own way of dealing with them. They do not like to answer my questions. They are quick to leave on their own! Good luck, mon ami!

[Redzeppelin]

Red:

I remain unconvinced at specifity as a valid measure of design. For one thing, it's entirely subjective. Mathematically, there is no difference between I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO and I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A, one just happens to mean something a bit more to you if you speak English. If I had just blown in from the planet Xerzicon 4 and spoke only Xerziconese, one would not seem any more 'designed' to me than the other.

That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement.

No, the probablity of each of those letters randomly forming is 1/27, if we're counting spaces as a character. The probability of getting them all in a row correctly is probably a bit closer to the number you cite, but so is the probability of coming up with any other string of letters that long.

I was speaking of the latter.

One more problem:

I might suggest that language is quite possibly not the best metaphor for you to be using here, because languages aren't designed: they evolve. The metaphor between liguistic and biological evolution is actually quite precise, because, under most circumstances, parents pass on their language to the same people to whom they pass on their genetic material. We can see, from surviving texts, how the traits of Old English that are the 'fittest' retain more 'offspring' (speakers), and thus stay with us today; whereas the traits that are not beneficial (such as the dative tense, and the ð and the þ) become lost as we move into Middle English. Then, as the enivronment of the language changes (ie: a more educated and literate group of 'hosts' emerges), the traits of uniform rules of grammar and spelling (as well as other things) gain a larger evolutionary advantage and eventually become what you and I are speaking in.

Because of this phenomenon, linguists are able to classify languages in the same way biologists classify animals: using an objectively nested hierarchy. Any group of objects can be placed into a nested hierarchy, of course. Cars, for example, could be classified first by number of wheels, then by size, then by manufacturer, then by model and so on. The problem with this is that another person could come and do the classification in a different order (manufacturer, then size, then number of wheels...). This is not possible with biological species or languages, because traits that appear in one group do not, and cannot appear in other groups. You can take more or less any kind of enginge and put it in more or less any kind of car, but you can't take warm-bloodedness and put it in a fish. Let me rephrase that: there is no particular reason why warm-bloodedness should not appear in fish, but it never does, because that trait is only found in whichever mammals and birds, due to the way they happened to evolve. Similarly, there is no particular reason why kanji-like characters (which represent ideas instead of sounds) should not appear in western languages, but they never do, because of the way that those two languages evolved. There is a mathematical way to determine whether or not a given set of objects fit into an objectively nested hierarchy, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I've just realized that I'm way off topic. It's late.

In conclusion: the sentence "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America" may be designed, but the language that produced it isn't, and it is therefore a poor analogy to use when arguing for design.

The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth. Whether or not you've found a weakness in the example doesn't invalidate the point it is trying to make; metaphors - by their very nature - call up associations - they are made to point out qualities of the thing compared to, but they are not the thing compared to; therefore, the idea persists: in nature, meaningful, complex, and specific structures indicate the hand of a designer. In essence, you have argued a straw man, because instead of dealing with the point the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.

[Dante Wodehouse]

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

[Dante Wodehouse]

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

[cuppajoe_9]

That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement.

So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA...ad inifinitum is meaningful to you? Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.

The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth.

In addition, the language is a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.

In essence, you have argued a straw man, because instead of dealing with the point the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.

It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and then tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there is a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

[Redzeppelin]

So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA...ad inifinitum is meaningful to you?

A silly question - another one that flirts with insult.

Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.

No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information. How does it "work" then?

In addition, the language is a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.

Laguage is an agreed upon system of conventions. It does not "evolve" in the way you're suggesting. It "evolves" in terms of change, but not in terms of creation. It is an artificial creation.

It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and then tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.

The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information. I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.

[cuppajoe_9]

No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information.

The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.

How does it "work" then?

Every living speices is equally the end product of evolution, at least for the time being. In a few million years, most of them will be extinct – us included – and there will be a new set of 'end points'.

The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information.

Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.

I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.

Again?

[Pendragon]

We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there is a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

[JGL57]

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

How would a creator come without a creator? Ad infinitum?

By what sound logic would we analogize from a human creating an airplane to an invisible all-powerful person creating a universe ex nihlio - other than just letting the imagination run wild? Such an imagination would be good for writing award-winning science fiction, otherwise what?

[Lote-Tree]

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

If matter/energy is neither created or destroyed and they are in a constant state of transformation then there is no need of a creator.

[cuppajoe_9]

Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.